DOCSLIB.ORG

The Intellectuel Debate in Britain on the European Union

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

GROUPEMENT D'ETUDES ET DE RECHERCHES NOTRE EUROPE President : Jacques Delors THE INTELLECTUEL DEBATE IN BRITAIN ON THE EUROPEAN UNION Stephen George Jean Monnet Professor, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield Research and Policy Paper N° 5 October 1998 44, Rue Notre-Dame des Victoires 75002 Paris Tel : 01 53 00 94 40 e-mail : [email protected] http://www.notre-europe.asso.fr Study avalaible in French, English and German © Notre Europe, October 1998. Notre Europe “Notre Europe” is an independent research and policy unit whose objective is the study of Europe – its history and civilisations, path to integration and future prospects. The association has started work in January 1997. It has a small, multi-national team of six in- house researchers (French, German, Belgian, Italian, Portuguese and British), chaired by Jacques Delors. “Notre Europe” participates in public debate in two ways. First, publishing internal research papers and second, collaborating with outside researchers and academics to produce contributions to the debate on European questions. The association also organises meetings and conferences in association with other institutions and publications. It published its first book, "France-Allemagne: le bond en avant", in March 1998 (Eds. Odile Jacob). FOREWORD This paper is the third in a series published by the Research and Policy Unit, "Notre Europe", chaired by Jacques Delors, which aims to take a fresh look at the impact of the process of European integration on the future of the nation-state by examining the intellectual debate within the Member States of the European Union. The first two studies were published as part of a collection of texts on the Franco-German relationship: "The nation and Europe: the German debate", by Dr. Donate Kluxen-Pyta of the University of Bonn, and "The new European crisis of conscience: political Europe between nation and federation. A French viewpoint", by Laurent Bouvet, Doctor of Political Science and researcher at the Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales, Paris and at the University of Sienna.1 Interestingly, this third study differs in style, although not in quality, from those on France and Germany in several respects. First and foremost, the very notion of "intellectual" debate sits uneasily with the traditional British pragmatic approach to all matters European. Stephen George, Jean Monnet Professor at the Department of Politics of the University of Sheffield, argues that Britain does not have a distinct class of intellectuals. As a consequence, some of the debate can be "parochial and somewhat unsophisticated". Second, despite the recent proliferation of so-called "think-tanks" on both the left and right which have an increasing input into the political debate on Europe, this rather small circle of intellectual opinion has little impact on popular perceptions. Another striking feature of the UK debate today is that it tends to focus on the question of economic and monetary union, although the arguments put forward by the left and right reflect more general attitudes towards the EU. Yet, Professor George concludes on an optimistic note, highlighting original thinking on other questions, such as democratic legitimacy, particularly from the pro-European left, which he hopes will make a positive contribution to the EU debate and encourage Britain to embrace a European future. We hope that "The Intellectual Debate in Britain on the European Union" will also complement our publication earlier this year of Lionel Barber's paper, "Britain and the New European Agenda" (updated and translated into French and German from the English version, published by the Centre for European Reform, London) and so lead to a better understanding of the debate in the UK. 1 "France-Allemagne: Le Bond en Avant", Editions Odile Jacob, Paris, 1998. Our long-term ambition is to publish similar studies for each of the Member States in order to provide a panorama of the intellectual debate on the future of European integration throughout the Union. INTRODUCTION The intellectual debate in Britain on the European Union (EU) has divided along political lines. The issue cuts across the right-left division in British politics, and this has produced a debate within the right and a debate within the left, but no real debate across the right-left divide. Many of the arguments are heard on both sides of the political divide, but essentially there are two separate debates. Recently both the debates have centred on monetary union, and whether Britain should join the single currency, although underlying the arguments put forward on this issue are more general attitudes towards the EU. In many ways the arguments remain essentially the same as they were at the time of the British referendum on membership of the European Community (EC) in 1975. Individuals may have shifted their positions, and the focus of the argument may have moved on with events, but the debate continues to be between a position that believes that British membership of the EC / EU / single currency is a good thing, and another position that doubts it. Following what has become accepted terminology, the two sides of the debate both on the right and on the left will be described as “pro-Europeans” and “Eurosceptics”. It must be emphasised that this paper is concerned with the intellectual debate, not the political debate. This has two implications. First, the space given to the different voices in the debate does not necessarily reflect their political importance. In particular, the anti-European left is increasingly an isolated group within the politics of the Labour Party. Second, there is a gap between the intellectual debate and popular perceptions. As one academic observer said in private correspondence with the author about this project, “it seems to me that in talking about the intellectual debate in Britain, the point needs to be made about just how far removed this is from popular debate, where the media pick on the extremist anti-integrationist views so readily, turning them into banner headlines, without ever considering any of the reasoned debate that is going on in think-tanks, research institutions etc. I know very little of France or Germany first hand, but I suspect that at least in France, where philosophical debate is more a part of the popular intellectual landscape, reasoned debate is more widespread (or am I just being naive?).”1 French and German readers of this paper in particular will have their own ideas about whether this view of France and Germany is naive, but the point is valid for Britain that the intellectual debate scarcely impinges on the popular perception. If there is to be a referendum on the single currency, perhaps the national debate will have to be engaged; until then, the discussion remains confined to a relatively small circle of intellectual opinion. However, this does not mean that it is unimportant in shaping the parameters of political debate. THE DEBATE ON THE RIGHT Some of the main contributions to this debate have been made by Conservative politicians, including senior former cabinet ministers. This reflects the impact on the Conservative Party of the European issue. It has divided the Party more than any issue since the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846.2 The Conservatives have always been the party of big business, but also the party of nationalism. The European issue has driven a wedge between these two elements of Conservatism. It has become increasingly obvious that large sections of business are apprehensive about the effect on them of Britain being semi-detached from developments in the EU. This was the reason given by Sir Geoffrey Howe for his resignation from his position as Margaret Thatcher's deputy in 1990.3 At the same time, other leading Conservatives have adopted the argument that the EU must remain a Europe of nation states. The pro-European right On the pro-European right the leading voices are those of former cabinet ministers: Sir Geoffrey Howe, Michael Heseltine, Kenneth Clarke, and Sir Leon Brittan (the Vice-President of the European Commission).4 However, the Conservative Group for Europe has also contributed significantly through its series of pamphlets by less prominent pro-European Conservatives.5 Their argument for British membership of the single currency is that it will be beneficial for business and consumers because it will eliminate the costs of foreign exchange transactions and fluctuations in exchange rates with our main trading partners, make pricing more transparent, and make a reality of the single market. It should also produce the price stability that has tended to evade British governments. Quentin Davies, a Conservative backbench MP, says that all Conservatives should support EMU under the Maastricht conditions because it will erect institutional barriers to governments manipulating the money supply for political purposes. This in turn will lead to lower interest rates and a more favourable environment for industrial investment.6 Now that it is clear that the single currency will go ahead, the pragmatic argument is put that it is dangerous for Britain to remain outside of the monetary union. British businesses could be disadvantaged in competing for business within the single market because they are operating in a foreign currency, whereas their competitors will be using the same currency as their customers. The pre-eminence of the City of London in financial markets might be put at risk if Britain remains outside of the single currency. Interest rates will remain higher in Britain than within the monetary union because the financial markets will demand a premium against the greater risk of devaluation. Foreign direct investment might start to go to countries that are inside the monetary union to avoid the risks of exchange rate fluctuations and the transaction costs.
Recommended publications
  • Western Europe

    Western Europe

    Western Europe Great Britain National Affairs JL HE DOMINANT EVENT of 1983 was the general election in June, which gave the Conservatives an overall majority of 144 seats. The election results led to the immediate eclipse of Michael Foot as Labor leader and Roy Jenkins as head of the Liberal-Social Democratic alliance; Neil Kinnock took over as Labor head and David Owen as leader of the Social Democrats. The Conservative victory was attributable in part to a fall in the inflation rate; in May it stood at 3.7 per cent, the lowest figure in 15 years. The "Falklands factor" also contributed to the Conserva- tive win, in that the government of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher appeared resolute in the pursuit of its aims. Finally, the Conservative victory owed something to disunity in Labor's ranks. The extreme right-wing parties fielded about 66 per cent fewer candidates in 1983 than in 1979; there were 59 National Front (NF) candidates, 53 British National party candidates (this party had broken away from the NF in 1980), and 14 can- didates belonging to other right-wing groups. The extreme-left Workers' Revolu- tionary party fielded 21 candidates. In October Home Secretary Leon Brittan announced plans to raise the electoral deposit to an "acceptable minimum," thus making it more difficult for extremist candidates to run for office. A report issued in October by the national advisory committee of the Young Conservatives maintained that "extreme and racialist forces are at work inside the Conservative party." Despite this, however, Jacob Gewirtz, director of the Board of Deputies of British Jews' defense and group relations department, indicated in December that in recent years the focus of antisemitism in Britain had shifted dramatically from the extreme right to the extreme left.
  • Recall of Mps

    Recall of Mps

    House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee Recall of MPs First Report of Session 2012–13 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 21 June 2012 HC 373 [incorporating HC 1758-i-iv, Session 2010-12] Published on 28 June 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider political and constitutional reform. Current membership Mr Graham Allen MP (Labour, Nottingham North) (Chair) Mr Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Sheila Gilmore MP (Labour, Edinburgh East) Andrew Griffiths MP (Conservative, Burton) Fabian Hamilton MP (Labour, Leeds North East) Simon Hart MP (Conservative, Camarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) Tristram Hunt MP (Labour, Stoke on Trent Central) Mrs Eleanor Laing MP (Conservative, Epping Forest) Mr Andrew Turner MP (Conservative, Isle of Wight) Stephen Williams MP (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West) Powers The Committee’s powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in Temporary Standing Order (Political and Constitutional Reform Committee). These are available on the Internet via http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmstords.htm. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/pcrc. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume.
  • Peacebuilding and Post–Conflict Reconstruction

    Peacebuilding and Post–Conflict Reconstruction

    House of Commons International Development Committee Conflict and Development: Peacebuilding and Post–conflict Reconstruction Sixth Report of Session 2005–06 Volume I HC 923-I House of Commons International Development Committee Conflict and Development: Peacebuilding and Post–conflict Reconstruction Sixth Report of Session 2005–06 Volume I Report, together with formal minutes Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 17 October 2006 HC 923-I Published on 25 October 2006 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 International Development Committee The International Development Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for International Development and its associated public bodies. Current membership Malcolm Bruce MP (Liberal Democrat, Gordon) (Chairman) John Barrett MP (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West) John Battle MP (Labour, Leeds West) Hugh Bayley MP (Labour, City of York) John Bercow MP (Conservative, Buckingham) Richard Burden MP (Labour, Birmingham Northfield) Mr Quentin Davies MP (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford) James Duddridge MP (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East) Ann McKechin MP (Labour, Glasgow North) Joan Ruddock MP (Labour, Lewisham Deptford) Mr Marsha Singh MP (Labour, Bradford West) Mr Jeremy Hunt MP (Conservative, South West Surrey) was also a member of the Committee during this inquiry. Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
  • Individual Responsibility of Ministers: an Outline of the Issues

    Individual Responsibility of Ministers: an Outline of the Issues

    The Individual Responsibility of Ministers: An Outline of the Issues Research Paper 96/27 21 February 1996 The individual responsibility of ministers is a vital aspect of accountable and democratic Parliamentary government, yet it is a 'convention' which is difficult to define with certainty and which, to a large degree, depends on the circumstances of each individual case. This Paper seeks to explore, in general terms, the subject as a whole and several interesting examples from the era of Crichel Down in 1954 onwards to illustrate the issue. It does not seek to provide a comprehensive analysis of ministerial responsibility (including collective responsibility) or Parliamentary accountability. Barry K Winetrobe Janet Seaton Home Affairs Section Reference and Reader Services Section House of Commons Library Summary Individual ministerial responsibility is an important if complex constitutional issue. It is often described as a constitutional convention, and this Paper examines its nature in that context, and in relation to collective responsibility and in the light of developments such as the growth of select committees, the development of Next Steps agencies and quangos, and the publication in 1992 of Questions of procedure for Ministers. The nature of individual responsibility in action is described briefly, including aspects short of a ministerial resignation or dismissal. The interesting, if short, debate on ministerial responsibility on 12 February 1996 is considered. A number of modern examples of situations where individual responsibility could be said to have arisen are examined, purely to illustrate various aspects of the 'convention'. It is not intended to be a comprehensive list. It covers significant episodes such as Crichel Down in 1954 (in which Sir David Maxwell Fyfe set out what is often regarded as the classic statement of the traditional doctrine), the Falklands (1982) and Westland (1986), and includes instances where resignation demands were successfully restricted such as Court Line (1975) and the Maze Prison escape (1983).
  • Directory of the European Commission

    Directory of the European Commission

    Directory of the European Commission 16 JUNE 1994 Directory of the European Commission 16 JUNE 1994 Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication The information in the Directory was correct at the time of going to press but is liable to change Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1994 ISBN 92-826-8491-1 Reproduction is authorized, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged. Printed in Belgium Contents 5 The Commission Special responsibilities of the Members of the Commission 7 11 Secretarial-General of the Commission 17 — Forward Studies Unit 19 Inspectorate-General 21 Legal Service 23 Spokesman's Service 25 Joint Interpreting and Conference Service 27 Statistical Office 31 Translation Service 37 Informatics Directorate 39 Security Office Directorates-General 41 DG I — External Economic Relations 49 DG IA — External Political Relations 53 TFE — Enlargement Task Force 55 DG H — Economic and Financial Affairs 59 DG III — Industry 65 DG IV — Competition 69 DG V — Employment. Industrial Relations and Social Affairs 73 DG VI — Agriculture 79 — Veterinary and Phytosanitary Office 81 DG VII — Transport 83 DG VIII — Development 3 DG IX — Personnel and Administration 89 DG X — Audiovisual .Media, Information, Communication and Culture 93 DG XI — Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection 97 DG XII — Science, Research and Development 99 — Joint Research Centre 105 DG XIII — Telecommunications, Information Market and Exploitation of Research 111 DGXIV —Fisheries 117 DG XV —Internal Market and Financial Services 121 DG XVI — Regional Policies 125 DG XVII — Energy 129 DG XVIII—Credit and Investments 133 DGXIX —Budgets 135 DG XX — Financial Control 137 DG XXI — Customs and Indirect Taxation 141 DG XXIII— Enterprise Policy, Distributive Trades, Tourism and Cooperatives 143 Consumer Policy Service 145 Task Force for Human Resources.
  • Revisiting Revolutions in Youth Justice

    Revisiting Revolutions in Youth Justice

    1997) who implemented a much Revisiting revolutions tougher range of policies during their terms of office. A further explanation for these responses to youth justice in youth justice during the 1980s concerns political distraction, where events including Daniel McCarthy makes sense of the Falklands War, the miners’ strike, poll tax, and rising unemployment reductions in the size and scale of the levels, were by far the big electoral youth justice system issues of the time, with youth crime comparably low as a political priority. Finally, the economic downturn of the mid to late 1970s Since 2008 there has been a marked Secretary William Whitelaw and meant that Thatcher’s first term as reduction in the size and scale his ‘short sharp shock’ catchphrase Prime Minister was subject to of the youth justice system (YJS) advocated an authoritarian stance considerable curtailments on public in England and Wales. Falls in the towards young offenders. Yet, despite spending, where youth justice numbers of young people held this punitive rhetoric, the numbers featured as one such area where in custody, receiving community of young people convicted or minimal financial resources were TOPICAL ISSUES AND COMMENT penalties, entering the youth justice cautioned, being sent to custody, deployed. system, among a host of other as well as receiving other court changes have all taken place. disposals were all significantly The tail end of Labour to the reduced during the 1980s. For 14 coalition One of the interesting features of to 17 year old males, there were From 1992 through to 2007, the these reductions is that they have reductions in the numbers sent to size and scale of the YJS increased taken place in the context of a custody (from 6,900 in 1979 to considerably – the reasons behind Conservative-majority coalition 1,900 in 1989), and in the total which have been subject to extensive government – a political party number of young people sentenced discussion elsewhere (Goldson, most known for its tough on crime (from 56,300 in 1979 to 20,100 2000).
  • Members of Parliament Disqualified Since 1900 This Document Provides Information About Members of Parliament Who Have Been Disqu

    Members of Parliament Disqualified Since 1900 This Document Provides Information About Members of Parliament Who Have Been Disqu

    Members of Parliament Disqualified since 1900 This document provides information about Members of Parliament who have been disqualified since 1900. It is impossible to provide an entirely exhaustive list, as in many cases, the disqualification of a Member is not directly recorded in the Journal. For example, in the case of Members being appointed 5 to an office of profit under the Crown, it has only recently become practice to record the appointment of a Member to such an office in the Journal. Prior to this, disqualification can only be inferred from the writ moved for the resulting by-election. It is possible that in some circumstances, an election could have occurred before the writ was moved, in which case there would be no record from which to infer the disqualification, however this is likely to have been a rare occurrence. This list is based on 10 the writs issued following disqualification and the reason given, such as appointments to an office of profit under the Crown; appointments to judicial office; election court rulings and expulsion. Appointment of a Member to an office of profit under the Crown in the Chiltern Hundreds or the Manor of Northstead is a device used to allow Members to resign their seats, as it is not possible to simply resign as a Member of Parliament, once elected. This is by far the most common means of 15 disqualification. There are a number of Members disqualified in the early part of the twentieth century for taking up Ministerial Office. Until the passage of the Re-Election of Ministers Act 1919, Members appointed to Ministerial Offices were disqualified and had to seek re-election.
  • The Penalty of Imprisonment

    The Penalty of Imprisonment

    The Penalty of Imprisonment LOUIS BLOM-COOPER THE TANNER LECTURES ON HUMAN VALUES Delivered at Clare Hall, Cambridge University November 30 and December 1 and 2, 1987 LOUIS BLOM-COOPER QC is one of England’s foremost constitutional lawyers and one of the most active pro- ponents of penal reform. Educated at King’s College, London, and at the Uni- versities of British Columbia, Amsterdam, and Cambridge, Blom-Cooper was called to the Bar in 1952 and was ap- pointed a QC in 1970. From 1967 to 1982 he was Joint Director of the Legal Research Unit at Bedford College, London, and he has been a Visiting Fellow at Queen Mary College, London, since 1983. Between 1966 and 1979 he served as a magistrate in London and was also a member of the Board of Visitors at Wandsworth Prison. During this time he was a promi- nent member of the Home Secretary’s Advisory Council on Penal Reform, serving inter alia on the Wootton Com- mittee (which resulted in the introduction of Community Service as a disciplined sentence for offenders as an alterna- tive to imprisonment). For ten years, between 1973 and 1983, Blom-Cooper was Chairman of the Howard League for Penal Reform. In addition to numerous articles, Blom-Cooper has pub- lished seven books, including Law and Morality (1976), Progress in Penal Reform (1975), and The A6 Murder 1963). He has made a study of the language used by lawyers and published The Law as Literature in 1962 and Language and the Law in 1965. I. GAOLS AND GOALS: SETTING THE TRAP Of such Ceremonies as be used in the Church, and have had their beginning by the institution of man, some at the first were of godly intent and purpose devised, and yet at length turned to vanity and superstition: some entered into the Church by undiscreet devotion, and such a zeal as was without knowledge; and for because they were winked at in the begin- ning, they grew daily to more and more abuses, which not only for their unprofitableness, but also because they have much blinded the people, and obscured the glory of God, are worthy to be cut away, and clean rejected.
  • Holders of Ministerial Office in the Conservative Governments 1979-1997

    Holders of Ministerial Office in the Conservative Governments 1979-1997

    Holders of Ministerial Office in the Conservative Governments 1979-1997 Parliamentary Information List Standard Note: SN/PC/04657 Last updated: 11 March 2008 Author: Department of Information Services All efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this data. Nevertheless the complexity of Ministerial appointments, changes in the machinery of government and the very large number of Ministerial changes between 1979 and 1997 mean that there may be some omissions from this list. Where an individual was a Minister at the time of the May 1997 general election the end of his/her term of office has been given as 2 May. Finally, where possible the exact dates of service have been given although when this information was unavailable only the month is given. The Parliamentary Information List series covers various topics relating to Parliament; they include Bills, Committees, Constitution, Debates, Divisions, The House of Commons, Parliament and procedure. Also available: Research papers – impartial briefings on major bills and other topics of public and parliamentary concern, available as printed documents and on the Intranet and Internet. Standard notes – a selection of less formal briefings, often produced in response to frequently asked questions, are accessible via the Internet. Guides to Parliament – The House of Commons Information Office answers enquiries on the work, history and membership of the House of Commons. It also produces a range of publications about the House which are available for free in hard copy on request Education web site – a web site for children and schools with information and activities about Parliament. Any comments or corrections to the lists would be gratefully received and should be sent to: Parliamentary Information Lists Editor, Parliament & Constitution Centre, House of Commons, London SW1A OAA.
  • Register of All-Party Groups

    Register of All-Party Groups

    REGISTER OF ALL-PARTY GROUPS (As at 13 June 2007) REGISTER OF ALL-PARTY GROUPS PAGE 2 SECTION 1: COUNTRY GROUPS TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction............................................................................................................................... 2 The Nature of All-Party Groups ..................................................................................... 2 Purpose and Form of the ‘Register of All-Party Groups’............................................... 2 Purpose and Form of the ‘Approved List’ of Groups..................................................... 2 Administration of the Register and Approved List......................................................... 4 Complaints about All-Party Groups................................................................................ 4 Section 1: Country Groups ...................................................................................................... 6 Section 2: Subject Groups.................................................................................................... 141 REGISTER OF ALL-PARTY GROUPS PAGE 3 SECTION 1: COUNTRY GROUPS INTRODUCTION The Nature of All-Party Groups All-party groups are regarded as relatively informal compared with other cross-party bodies such as select committees of the House. The membership of all-party groups mainly comprises backbench Members of the House of Commons and Lords but may also include ministers and non-parliamentarians. Groups flourish and wane according to the interests and enthusiasm of Members.
  • President Clinton's Meetings & Telephone Calls with Foreign

    President Clinton's Meetings & Telephone Calls with Foreign

    President Clinton’s Meetings & Telephone Calls with Foreign Leaders, Representatives, and Dignitaries from January 23, 1993 thru January 19, 20011∗ 1993 Telephone call with President Boris Yeltsin of Russia, January 23, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel, January 23, 1993, White House Telephone call with President Leonid Kravchuk of Ukraine, January 26, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, January 29, 1993, White House Telephone call with Prime Minister Suleyman Demirel of Turkey, February 1, 1993, White House Meeting with Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel of Germany, February 4, 1993, White House Meeting with Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada, February 5, 1993, White House Meeting with President Turgut Ozal of Turkey, February 8, 1993, White House Telephone call with President Stanislav Shushkevich of Belarus, February 9, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with President Boris Yeltsin of Russia, February 10, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with Prime Minister John Major of the United Kingdom, February 10, 1993, White House Telephone call with Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany, February 10, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, February 10, 1993, White House 1∗ Meetings that were only photo or ceremonial events are not included in this list. Meeting with Foreign Minister Michio Watanabe of Japan, February 11, 1993,
  • Appendix: “Ideology, Grandstanding, and Strategic Party Disloyalty in the British Parliament”

    Appendix: “Ideology, Grandstanding, and Strategic Party Disloyalty in the British Parliament”

    Appendix: \Ideology, Grandstanding, and Strategic Party Disloyalty in the British Parliament" August 8, 2017 Appendix Table of Contents • Appendix A: Wordscores Estimation of Ideology • Appendix B: MP Membership in Ideological Groups • Appendix C: Rebellion on Different Types of Divisions • Appendix D: Models of Rebellion on Government Sponsored Bills Only • Appendix E: Differences in Labour Party Rebellion Following Leadership Change • Appendix F: List of Party Switchers • Appendix G: Discussion of Empirical Model Appendix A: Wordscores Estimation of Ideology This Appendix describes our method for ideologically scaling British MPs using their speeches on the welfare state, which were originally produced for a separate study on welfare reform (O'Grady, 2017). We cover (i) data collection, (ii) estimation, (iii) raw results, and (iv) validity checks. The resulting scales turn out to be highly valid, and provide an excellent guide to MPs' ideologies using data that is completely separate to the voting data that forms the bulk of the evidence in our paper. A1: Collection of Speech Data Speeches come from an original collection of every speech made about issues related to welfare in the House of Commons from 1987-2007, covering the period over which the Labour party moved 1 to the center under Tony Blair, adopted and enacted policies of welfare reform, and won office at the expense of the Conservatives. Restricting the speeches to a single issue area is useful for estimating ideologies because with multiple topics there is a danger of conflating genuine extremism (a tendency to speak in extreme ways) with a tendency or requirement to talk a lot about topics that are relatively extreme to begin with (Lauderdale and Herzog, 2016).